If there is a posted no return policy, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. But if they don't have a posted policy, here's what she did wrong. She should have cancelled payment on the check and returned the seat to the store. she could tell the owner, she doesn't care what she does with it, but she has cancelled the transaction. And then she leaves with no further discussion. But some how I get the impression that this disagreement was more about hissing and claws than substance.

JackieRabbit:If there is a posted no return policy, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. But if they don't have a posted policy, here's what she did wrong. She should have cancelled payment on the check and returned the seat to the store. she could tell the owner, she doesn't care what she does with it, but she has cancelled the transaction. And then she leaves with no further discussion. But some how I get the impression that this disagreement was more about hissing and claws than substance.

obviously you didn't RTFA and you make an arse out of yourself in so doing. congratulations.

KrispyKritter:JackieRabbit: If there is a posted no return policy, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. But if they don't have a posted policy, here's what she did wrong. She should have cancelled payment on the check and returned the seat to the store. she could tell the owner, she doesn't care what she does with it, but she has cancelled the transaction. And then she leaves with no further discussion. But some how I get the impression that this disagreement was more about hissing and claws than substance.

obviously you didn't RTFA and you make an arse out of yourself in so doing. congratulations.

I watched the video.... And I also know that ALL the antique stores on my area (except the ones selling Louis XIV desks, and the like) have a no return policy. And you're a dick.

Seems like a civil matter, rather than a criminal one. Maine has a very strong consumer protection law (posted no refund policies are not valid). I get worried when the police are used as debt collectors.

JackieRabbit:KrispyKritter: JackieRabbit: If there is a posted no return policy, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. But if they don't have a posted policy, here's what she did wrong. She should have cancelled payment on the check and returned the seat to the store. she could tell the owner, she doesn't care what she does with it, but she has cancelled the transaction. And then she leaves with no further discussion. But some how I get the impression that this disagreement was more about hissing and claws than substance.

obviously you didn't RTFA and you make an arse out of yourself in so doing. congratulations.

I watched the video.... And I also know that ALL the antique stores on my area (except the ones selling Louis XIV desks, and the like) have a no return policy. And you're a dick.

FTFA:

There is a law in Maine that does allow consumers to return damaged or defective goods for a refund. Linda Conti, an assistant attorney general who heads up the consumer division says that if it is returned immediately, a consumer has the right to a refund, even if a store has a 'no return policy'.

There. Now you won't have to trouble yourself reading through all those words in the rest of the article.

JackieRabbit:KrispyKritter: JackieRabbit: If there is a posted no return policy, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. But if they don't have a posted policy, here's what she did wrong. She should have cancelled payment on the check and returned the seat to the store. she could tell the owner, she doesn't care what she does with it, but she has cancelled the transaction. And then she leaves with no further discussion. But some how I get the impression that this disagreement was more about hissing and claws than substance.

obviously you didn't RTFA and you make an arse out of yourself in so doing. congratulations.

I watched the video.... And I also know that ALL the antique stores on my area (except the ones selling Louis XIV desks, and the like) have a no return policy. And you're a dick.

No matter what silliness a store posts up on the wall, consumers have rights which are spelled out by laws. You shouldn't call people a dick when you are talking out of your ass.

Any judge that allows this to go forward is an absolute ass, A sub-human piece of filth that does not deserve to breathe the air we do. I know that Judges are wealthy and support their businessmen peers as a matter of principle, but, really, someone who is supposed to be principled has to think of the 99% who ACTUALLY PAY MOST OF HIS SALARY, not just his fellow "suits".

Jument:IANAL but I don't think she has a leg to stand on if this page is accurate.

http://maine.gov/legis/lawlib/whatis.htm

"There are no Maine statutes regarding general merchandise returns. It's strictly a matter of store policy, which should be posted in the store. "

Think the State Attorney has someone who doesn't need to go IANAL?

Chapter 05: Consumer Rights If You Are Sold Defective Goods Or Services

Consumers who immediately discover that they have been sold a seriously defective item can immediately reject it and demand their money back. If a consumer does not discover the defect until sometime later, then the consumer's remedy is to have the business or the manufacturer repair the item. If the item cannot be repaired, then the consumer can consider revoking ownership and demanding the return of the purchase price.

What I don't understand is how she got charged with theft. Passing a bad check, perhaps, Conversion, perhaps. But theft? Not even specified as petty theft.

As a comparison, the same AG site says consumers can cancel credit card transaction if they feel they were treated unfairly (for purchases greater than $50). So theoretically, if that was a$50 toilet seat (its not), and she paid by card, and canceled the transaction, would she still be charged with theft? Apparently not, even though the size of the dispute is larger.

/so I guess the moral of the story, is pay by card when dealing with douche stores in Maine

Vlad_the_Inaner:Chapter 05: Consumer Rights If You Are Sold Defective Goods Or Services

Consumers who immediately discover that they have been sold a seriously defective item can immediately reject it and demand their money back. If a consumer does not discover the defect until sometime later, then the consumer's remedy is to have the business or the manufacturer repair the item. If the item cannot be repaired, then the consumer can consider revoking ownership and demanding the return of the purchase price.

That quote is all kinds of messed up. Example: it says that the consumer can "consider demanding the return of the purchase price". It doesn't say that the story has to comply! Also: what's the definition of immediately versus sometime later? Both rather important points.

Jument:Vlad_the_Inaner: Chapter 05: Consumer Rights If You Are Sold Defective Goods Or Services

Consumers who immediately discover that they have been sold a seriously defective item can immediately reject it and demand their money back. If a consumer does not discover the defect until sometime later, then the consumer's remedy is to have the business or the manufacturer repair the item. If the item cannot be repaired, then the consumer can consider revoking ownership and demanding the return of the purchase price.

That quote is all kinds of messed up. Example: it says that the consumer can "consider demanding the return of the purchase price". It doesn't say that the story has to comply! Also: what's the definition of immediately versus sometime later? Both rather important points.

So you are asking for technical definitions instead of a short FAQ type answer.

Indeed that is covered by Maine Statues (you know, the ones that supposedly don't exist)

Vlad_the_Inaner:Jument: Vlad_the_Inaner: Chapter 05: Consumer Rights If You Are Sold Defective Goods Or Services

Consumers who immediately discover that they have been sold a seriously defective item can immediately reject it and demand their money back. If a consumer does not discover the defect until sometime later, then the consumer's remedy is to have the business or the manufacturer repair the item. If the item cannot be repaired, then the consumer can consider revoking ownership and demanding the return of the purchase price.

That quote is all kinds of messed up. Example: it says that the consumer can "consider demanding the return of the purchase price". It doesn't say that the story has to comply! Also: what's the definition of immediately versus sometime later? Both rather important points.

So you are asking for technical definitions instead of a short FAQ type answer.

Indeed that is covered by Maine Statues (you know, the ones that supposedly don't exist)

Vlad_the_Inaner:Jument: Vlad_the_Inaner: Chapter 05: Consumer Rights If You Are Sold Defective Goods Or Services

Consumers who immediately discover that they have been sold a seriously defective item can immediately reject it and demand their money back. If a consumer does not discover the defect until sometime later, then the consumer's remedy is to have the business or the manufacturer repair the item. If the item cannot be repaired, then the consumer can consider revoking ownership and demanding the return of the purchase price.

That quote is all kinds of messed up. Example: it says that the consumer can "consider demanding the return of the purchase price". It doesn't say that the story has to comply! Also: what's the definition of immediately versus sometime later? Both rather important points.

So you are asking for technical definitions instead of a short FAQ type answer.

Indeed that is covered by Maine Statues (you know, the ones that supposedly don't exist)

My point was that it's a lame FAQ answer. It's great to leave off the legalese but the FAQ doesn't tell the consumer anything useful. Also note that I never claimed to be an expert and my original quote was "if this is accurate".

I felt defensive, because the FAQ I quoted gave more information than the one you quoted, yet you criticized it. The AG office at least gave an overview,and a reference for more details.Not sure whatelse you could expect for a useful answer.

It seemed really doubtful that Maine's state law on the matter was 'caveat emptor', which is what your original quote boiled down to. So I looked it up, found the 'whatis' guide was wrong, but my link on why I thought it was wrong was rejected as 'all kinds of messed up'. So defensive seemed justified.